White House, confused between interaction or tension
Tehran, The paradox in the US government’s approach is prevailing in the minds of public opinion as if the two commanders are pursuing separate plans; while the president speaks indirectly of engagement with Iran, the hawkish in the White House moves on the axis of increasing pressure on Iran and tensions.
The double standards, or in other words, the paradox of behavior in the White House policies, although always partly existed, but in the Donald Trump administration, especially in the last few months, the situation has become increasingly highlighted. While just a few days ago, Washington added a number of other domestic and international companies to list of its sanctions on trade with Iran, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo once again reiterated his willingness to negotiate without a precondition with Tehran.
In general, though, during the last week, US officials, especially the president of the country, have decreased their sharp rhetoric against Iran; however, Pompeo stated at a press conference in Ecuador that Iran needs to meet the demands of the United States ahead of this negotiation.
These contradictory messages from the White House are so scattered that they highlight this issue in public opinion that two commanders are pursuing separate plans in the government. While the media consider the situation in the region to be extremely fragile, Washington’s doublestandards policy has made it harder to make decisions and assessments for the future. The sensitivity of the situation is so high that any miscalculation may lead to a military confrontation.
The Atlantic reported that these tense situations began when Trump tried to force the country to accept its demands, with maximum pressure on Tehran, but Tehran opposed the White House policy.
The Western media believes that while the US president still says he is not looking for a war with Iran, the White House brings its sharp remarks by crippling sanctions against Tehran. The most important military measure by Trump, was to name the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organization. The move clearly indicates that Trump government would prefer to resort to sanctions to deal with Iranians.
Director of the Defense Priorities Institute Benjamin Friedman believes that although pursuing maximum pressure policies has hit the Iranian economy, has failed to achieve the goals and, in front of this approach, has inspired Iran to resume the nuclear program and change its policies.
According to this analysis, the opposition between Iran and the United States has intensified as European signatory countries of the JCPOA failed to create enough economic benefits for Iran. With these conditions, the three British, French and German governments emphasize the need to maintain this agreement.
It seems that, as the words and tweets of our country’s foreign minister suggest, Trump is caught up in the hand of hawkish advisers, and in this way Pompeo’s role is highlighted in simmering the tension a way that the US President, on the one hand, is talking about interacting with and abandoning the military option, but radicals are busy with provoking other countries to form a coalition against Iran.
The Atlantic evaluated Trump’s remarks on downing an Iranian drone in the direction of Trump’s efforts to satisfy his close circle’ official at the White House, because in the current tense situation between the two countries, Trump prefers not to think about war and follow the same sanctions path as possible. The analyst of this outlet states that in this framework Iran’s dissatisfaction is greater because it is deprived of the interests of the nuclear deal.
Following this White House’s doublestandards move last week, news of the US President’s semiofficial permission to Republican Senator Rand Paul was heard to discuss with Zarif. Although the official statement was not published on the meeting, the presence of our foreign minister in New York and his visits and remarks, along with Trump’s remarks, strengthened this speculation.
Trump’s speech at a news conference revealed that Sen. Paul made the necessary coordination with the US president, not as an official representative. The Politico magazine described Paul as a serious opponent of the war with Iran, which is now calling for playing role and efforts to reduce tension between Tehran and Washington.
Some media outlets in the West see this as a small but promising move to open up the big knot that the Trump government created. Rand Paul, 56, describes himself as a liberal conservative, despite his friendship with the US president, makes considerations about the internal and international policies of Trump. He has a sharp critical approach, especially in the field of funding White House militarism. Paul has now embarked on diplomacy to prevent the warmongering demand of Team B at the White House.
The senator even in an interview criticized the US government’s policies that Iranians consider the severe sanctions imposed by the government of Trump to be a war move.
In a period where tensions continue in the Middle East, Paul’s mission has been accompanied by a variety of analyzes in the United States. According to Politico’s report, his companionship with Zarif could be interpreted as a olive branch by the president of the United States to reduce tensions. On the other hand, Zarif’s presence in New York and his meeting with some political and academic figures, especially the meeting with the White House’s official, also dissatisfied some White House officials because they believe Paul’s intervention is undermining Trump’s maximum pressure on Tehran.
The Financial Times, in its analysis of ways to reduce tensions between Iran and the United States, considered one of the promising signs to be the White House’s agreement the Senator to negotiate with Iran’s foreign minister.
The analyst for the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy also believes that it should be made clear that Washington is interested in the path of diplomacy, as the prospect of an agreement diminishes, the approaches of Tehran become less flexible.
Although neither party officially spoke about the visit, in the West the US president’s willingness to meet is assessed as an indication of the lack of an orthodox approach in his foreign policy and the pursuit of the main goal of sitting at the negotiating table with Iran.
Source: Islamic Republic News Agency IRNA